I imagine it’ll end up looking very much like the Disney + Hulu + ESPN bundle. Minor savings but still more expensive than an individual subscription.

> traditional TV business

This was actually excluded from the deal. CNN, TNT, Discovery and the rest are being spun off into their own company. Presumably to wither and die.

▲

Mindwipe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, that was going to happen next year, but it never did and this deal has been agreed for the whole company.

WB pitched that to make it easier for them to be acquired by shunting all the debt to the channels entity - but it was unlikely the debt owners were ever going to go for that as presented, there would have been quite a significant chance of the channels group going under and them losing all the money.

But ultimately it turned out that enough entities were willing to bid now, before that split, that there was no point continuing to work out how to do it. Netflix will, presuming this deal completes, be the owner of CNN/TNT/Discovery at al.

Now, I am very sure they will look to sell several parts of those off - there is absolutely no way Netflix leadership wants to continue to own TNT - but that will have to come later.

	▲	indigodaddy 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>> Netflix will, presuming this deal completes, be the owner of CNN/TNT/Discovery at al. ^^This isn’t accurate based on the multiple articles I’ve read, including this OP article. The entities they are acquiring are clearly laid out. Your statement is complete speculation at best, and plainly false and at odds with the current facts we know about the deal.
	▲	afavour 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		FTA: > In June 2025, WBD announced plans to separate its Streaming & Studios and Global Networks divisions into two separate publicly traded companies. This separation is now expected to be completed in Q3 2026, prior to the closing of this transaction.
	▲	pbalau 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The transaction is expected to close after the previously announced separation of WBD’s Global Networks division, Discovery Global, into a new publicly-traded company, which is now expected to be completed in Q3 2026. Second paragraph of the article.
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

turnsout 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If they like money, they'll just roll HBO into Netflix and raise prices. I really doubt Disney's complex bundling/pricing scheme is helping their bottom line.

▲

true_religion 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it is. ESPN is a totally separate vertical than the rest of what Disney offers, and it’s subject to compulsory high rate licensing.

Excluding it from the bundle lets Disney be price competitive.

▲

WorldMaker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It also underlines in the US that sports is probably the last interest in linear programming. It would be interesting to get a picture of how many US customers will pay for ESPN in a Disney+ bundle but not Linear Hulu. I'm sure Disney will be tracking it, and probably made a smart move making the more interesting bundle the one with ESPN but not Linear Hulu.

▲

ghaff 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There's a huge interest in sports in the US (and elsewhere). And broadcast rights reflect that. But there are also a bunch of people who would happily take a discount on all their other video to not include sports.

▲

true_religion an hour ago | parent [-]

And sports coverage is very regional. Disney plus shows African football matches in S. Africa but in the US, I wouldn’t be surprised if it focused only on US football and US college teams.

	▲	ghaff an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't have cable or Disney+ any longer but, as someone who played rugby in school and still have an occasional interest, I find it's difficult to find in the US on TV.

▲

turnsout 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I could buy the ESPN carve-out, but the fact that Hulu is separate is just mental.

▲

afavour 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I dunno about that. They introduced the ad supported tier as a way to reach consumers at a lower price point and apparently it’s been very successful. I don’t think they want to lose those customers by jacking up prices now.

	▲	blairbeckwith 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Netflix has raised prices about 25% at the premium tier since they released the ad-free version in 2022. The with-ads plan has also seen increases since launch.
	▲	turnsout 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Their prices have been inching up. I pay for the lowest non-ad tier, and it's $17.99/mo. If I wanted 4K & HDR, it's up to $24.99/mo. At $7.99/mo for the ad-supported tier, they could easily bump that to $9.99/mo if it included HBO/Hulu/ESPN.

▲

mingus88 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suspect you are right, but I’m not alone in walking away from this trend.

They lost me as a longtime customer after too many price hikes and low programming quality.

Netflix shows are “have it on in the background” quality whereas HBO has released some of the best TV of all time. This merger has enshittification written all over it.

▲

turnsout 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree, but HBO has also gone downhill as they lost talent to other services. Currently the streamer with the highest consistent quality is Apple, which is pretty unexpected.

▲

WorldMaker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Apple has the benefit of the original Netflix exclusives model (and the original TV primetime distribution model) that they don't operate their own studios and instead can pick and choose from the cream of the crop of the more expensive projects from the others. (Severance is from Ben Stiller's Red Hour mini-studio, Ted Lasso and Shrinking are from WB Television, Slow Horses and Pluribus are from Sony Television, Foundation and Murderbot are from Skydance/Paramount Television, and so forth.)

I'm sure Apple is contributing significantly to many of those shows' budgets and helping them all reach similar quality bars, but Apple is also certainly benefiting from spreading that budget across multiple studios and not putting all their risk in (micro-)managing their own studio. Whereas a lot of the "streamer X has gone downhill" seems to be directly related to being able to source projects only from sibliing studios creating very simple monocultures of every project feeling the same and risking that bad or unlucky projects tainting other projects in that monoculture stew.

▲

TheAtomic 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Very hit or miss though. And withs some exceptions like Slow Horses, their productions feel overly produced, oiled by agency crossover and 360 package deals, i.e., manufactured from script to screen. Even Pluribus has that smug sanitized gloss.

▲

indigodaddy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t completely disagree with you, although For All Mankind has become a top 20 all time show for me.

	▲	ghaff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly, in these days when pretty much everything is sourced from individual production companies and showrunners, it becomes pretty clear that while some studios have their own brands/budgets/priorities/execs/etc. there's no magic formula to getting it all right. It's been tried before and will be tried again.

▲

Mistletoe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m pretty sure I would riot if they raise prices more. I’m not paying $30 to one streaming service. Criterion and Kanopy are working great for me as is.